dismissedMAR202024_03B52032024-03-20 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
A dentist trained in Brazil proposed to practice general and specialized dentistry in the United States, including clinical care, community education, and training other dental professionals.
Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found and AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render the work of an individual dentist nationally important under the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
“the record does not contain information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future work”
“the new information differs significantly from the endeavor she described previously”
“she has not demonstrated that any instructional activities she may undertake would offer benefits that extend beyond her colleagues and trainees”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“do not offer insight into the national importance of her proposed endeavor to practice dentistry in the United States”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“provides support for the Petitioner's claim that her proposed work has substantial merit”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Absent information related to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, the record does not show..."substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“we will base our review on the evidence that was in the record before the Director”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the submitted expert opinion letters from two university professors are not persuasive in establishing the national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
AAO treated the Petitioner's new 'Innovative Oral Rehabilitation Program' endeavor statement submitted on appeal as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi and refused to consider it, limiting review to the record before the Director.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his